Lomborg on Climate Cost Benefit Calculations

http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/20/climate-change-global-warming-copenhage
n-consensus-opinions-contributors-bjorn-lomborg_print.html
Suppose you can ignore the dishonesty, the fear mongering and the
political manipulation on the topic of anthropogenic climate change.
Suppose you think they really can sort out whether weather changes on
it's own or is also influenced by humanity. Suppose, even knowing how
dicey the 'science' of AGW is, you think the risks are so high we have
to act as if the science proved the conjecture that man's activity is
driving temps higher.
How could you sort out what might be done that is:
-affordable at all
-won't hurt more than it harms
-doesn't simply require all undeveloped nations to remain that way
-doesn't solve the problem by removing those who cause it; which is
theoretically, us
Lomborg's thoughts on the matter are persuasive, and do not reek of the
political manipulation that seems part and parcel of this topic.
"Evidence is growing that relatively cheap policies like climate
engineering and non-carbon energy research could effectively prevent
suffering from global warming, both in the short and long term."
"To sustainably reduce temperature rises, though, we need better
non-carbon-based technology options. Research by economist Chris Green
from McGill University shows that non-fossil sources like nuclear, wind,
solar and geothermal energy will--based on today's availability--get us
less than halfway toward a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and
only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100.
Policy makers should abandon carbon-reduction negotiations and make
agreements to seriously invest in research and development. About $100
billion spent annually on non-carbon-based energy research could
essentially stabilize our emissions and get temperature reductions under
control within a century or so. Green conservatively concludes that the
benefits of such an investment--from reduced warming and greater
prosperity--would bring about $11 worth of climate damage prevention for
every $1 invested.
Because research spending would be much cheaper than carbon-emission
cuts, there would be a much higher chance of political agreement, and a
much higher probability of the promises being enacted.
Many of us fear inaction on global warming. But we should equally fear
continuing down the perilous path of promising costly action that will
either fail to be enacted, or be more harmful than global warming
itself. "